Most Female Leaders Are Only Successful Because Of Their Male Relatives

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for President on Sunday. Should she win, which is more than possible and according to many experts likely, she will join a coterie of other female leaders who have exploited their family connections to reach the top. Despite portraying herself as a driven, hard-working woman, and being described as a modern, electrifying force by her supporters, Hillary reflects the importance of who you’re related to even more than George H. W. and George W. Bush (and perhaps Jeb before too long).

The “feminists” who used male connections

Look at the following list of current, recent, or historical female heads of government or state. It is a list that Hillary Clinton may join come Election Day 2016.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina (2007-): She succeeded her late husband, Néstor Kirchner.

Park Geun-hye, President of South Korea (2013-): Her father, Park Chung-hee, ruling from 1961 until his assassination in 1979, was the infamous general and President who revitalized the South Korean economy using authoritarian methods and political repression.

Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan (1988-90 and 1993-96): Her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, served as Prime Minister until a decade before she first assumed the role herself.

Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India (1980-84): Her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, was India’s inaugural Prime Minister.

Megawati Sukarnoputri, President of Indonesia (2001-04): Her father was the notorious Sukarno, Indonesia’s first President.

Argentina’s Crisina Kirchner… “Merit had *this* much to do with me becoming President… divided by a hundred.”

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines (2001-2010): Daughter of former President Diosdado Macapagal.

Corazon Aquino, President of the Philippines (1986-92): Described herself as a “plain housewife” and was the spouse of Benigno Aquino, Jr., a senator and the most virulent critic of the infamous autocrat Marcos. Benigno was assassinated and Corazon assumed the role of opposition leader, then head of state.

Soong Ching-ling, Vice President of the People’s Republic of China (1959-75) and Honorary President of the People’s Republic of China (1981): Wife of Sun-Yat Sen, who led the 1911 Revolution establishing the Republic of China and is still revered by Chinese in both mainland China and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan).

María Estela Martínez Cartas de Perón, President of Argentina (1974-76): Succeeded her husband, Juan, and gave Cristina Kirchner a precedent to follow.

This is a significant list of some of the world’s most famous female heads of state or government. If 99% of men in a particular country had run for or been appointed to these positions at the same time, it would have been a greater victory for egalitarianism and the common people than any of these women assuming the title.

In fact, the only “game-changing” 20th and 21st century female leaders not on this list are probably Golda Meir of Israel and Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What I have related to you above only exemplifies the victory of privileged, usually wealthy women who were able to seize their family name or male relatives’ fame and keep the facade of “feminism” and “merit” cloaked around them.

Hillary’s background

Since when does being First Lady qualify you to represent a state as its Senator? I guess if you’re in the limelight with no political responsibility for eight years.

Hillary, whatever your opinions on her political beliefs, is clearly intelligent. She didn’t get the highest SAT score or get the most college offers, but she graduated in the top twentieth of her high school class, did very well at Wellesley College, and completed her Juris Doctor degree at Yale. She was described as one of America’s 100 most promising lawyers as well.

After her marriage and during her time as Arkansas’s First Lady, she was a director on the board of Walmart and other commercial entities, even if directorships are more casual than the much more draining roles of CEO or other executive positions.

There are certainly other noteworthy things I can add here. But her resumé is no more impressive than hundreds or even thousands of others who were and still are churned out of America’s good or great colleges and who find levels of commercial or professional success in their chosen field.

What Hillary needed, however, was a man named Bill Clinton.

Senator, Secretary of State and maybe President… all because of Bill

The best part of Hillary’s resumé.

Irrespective of the achievements you can piece together from her early life, her trajectory after becoming Arkansas’ First Lady depended on her husband’s fame and clout. Because of Bill’s two terms in the White House, Hillary was constantly in the public eye. Her “sponsoring” of the Clinton healthcare plan came without risks, as she was the White House’s official hostess and not a politician. The job revolved around free networking for eight years and any decision made wasn’t hers to be accountable for.

Hillary also received, contrary to what some say, considerable sympathy after revelations about her husband’s soiling of the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky. And as she ran for the post of New York Senator, she capitalized on the departing President’s very favorable and greatly rehabilitated approval ratings.

When she announced her Democratic Presidential nomination, which she later lost to Obama, she again shamelessly milked her husband’s name and prestige. The personal brand she brought to the table, her stint as First Lady of a state, then a nation, and her time in the Senate, all stemmed from Bill in one way or another. And this same Bill was with her at every stage of the journey, ensuring that his wife only lost to Obama by a respectable margin.

One thing led to another and Hillary became Obama’s first Secretary of State. Largely through her gender, her supporters were able to “misogynize” anyone who questioned her woeful handling of the Benghazi incident in which American lives were lost. Her appearance without makeup, obviously deliberate, allowed her lapdogs to further emphasize how poor Hillary was being objectified and therefore assessments about her job performance were sexist.

Feminism uses even more Newspeak

The forces behind Hillary, which see her as an empowering choice rather than a privileged, connected one, is the same force which persuaded Republican Colin Powell to vote for Obama because a black President would be “good for America.” It substitutes political correctness and undeserved advantage for proper context and actual ability.

Hillary Clinton is not a self-made woman and has gloriously ridden the coattails of Bill. She does not deserve to be President of the United States, whether or not she is voted into the Oval Office.

Read More: Why Lithuania Should Ban Female Leaders

261 thoughts on “Most Female Leaders Are Only Successful Because Of Their Male Relatives”

  1. We also have the current president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff. She only could become the president thanks her predecessor, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva.

    1. I was going to write it.
      My guess is that Luis Inácio (or Lula, how we call him) helped to elect her so he can come back as the savior in the next election. He just has to say that she “didn’t listen to his advices while on charge”.
      Dilma screwed up the things so much here that not only the right doesn’t like her, the LEFT criticize her all the time! She isolated herself, the Congress is virtually uncontrollable, 80% of the people don’t stand for her. The Economy is stagnant, and a new law will be voted today that can strip the working class from almost all of their rights.
      Lula as president in 2019 is almost guaranteed.

  2. Hillary has two accomplishments.
    1. She reportedly has a vagina. I’m not confirming this, though, and I would never ask anyone to verify it. We’ll just have to take her and Bill’s word on this.
    2. She married Bill Clinton.
    That’s it. Her time as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State there are no zero accomplishments. No major legislation, no major initiatives, no major anything. She existed.

    1. “She reportedly has a vagina.”
      That’s all you need to go through life on easy mode and get everything handed to you on a silver platter.

      1. That life on a “silver platter” claim could legitimately be made regarding members of either sex, depending on circumstances like logistics and historical era.

    2. Margaret Thatcher did it her own way and never expected any special treatment or traded on a victim status.
      Funnily enough lefties, feminists and other pc left wing and communist types hate her more than anyone.

        1. ….Thatcher’s policies brutally screwed the earnest British working class while simultaneously protecting high profile Englishmen who brutally screwed the underprivileged children her policies amply provided them with.

      1. Thatcher was excellent. I found the cries of joy disgusting when she died. No fucking leader in England could do a Falklands these days – they are all disgusting effeminate softcocks, driving their country ever further in the shit.
        Lets not forget her husband, Denis, who, although painted as a buffoon, was anything but that, and I believe a lot of her views had their genesis with him.

        1. Thatcher’s hubby, Denis WAS a massive buffoon, (and quite possibly worse) for not griping about Maggie’s thick-as-thieves friendship with the despicable pedophile Jimmy Saville.

        2. Lame example, and a one off example at that, considering English politicians operate in an environment that is littered with peadophiles, most of them their own colleagues and members of the establishment.
          Can’t tell me the Queen did not have at least some intel on Rolf Harris.

        3. Maggie and the Queen likely relished hearing of these type of disgusting “escapades” because they protected the perpetrators at every turn.
          A shocking number of the elite 1% around the world, including those in the US, are heavily into pedophilia.

        4. I agree with the second part of your comment, and it is absolutely shocking. There is nothing I hate more than pedophilia and pedophiles – would happily skin them alive if it was possible to do so.
          All of this wasn’t the original crux of my point though.

        5. Watch “the Franklin Cover-Up, Conspiracy of Silence”” documentary on YouTube.
          It’s the US version of the maze-like Savile scandal in the UK.

        6. It certainly opened my eyes.
          Everyone should see it.
          It’s mind-blowing that the Discovery Channel was all set to show it back in the 90s until powerful “forces” stepped in and kept it from being shown all these years until YouTube finally made it freely accessible.
          It just goes to show how terrified people in high places are of having their ghoulishly cherished network exposed.

        7. Mate, you’re preaching to the converted – I totally agree. The only way you temporarily fix this is by violently overthrowing the elite. Then the new boss most likely becomes the same as the old boss.

        8. ….Not if they were somehow neutered.
          With that as a prerequisite, we’d soon see who REALLY wanted to be the boss.
          Then again, no one thought of Margaret Thatcher as an out of control sexual threat, and yet now we’ve come to find the British National Archives has released official reports showing she was actually protecting sadistic pedophiles left and right.

        9. Here in Argentina is constant the petitions and whinning to the ONU and just every other organism for the english to give malvinas back to argentina. I wonder, with this politically correct system we have, how long it will take until the english finally give up their well earned land.

        10. The UK will give it up just as soon as they actually want to be part of argentina. There has been a precident for this for a very long time. Argentina has no say in this and cannot attempt to cry shenanigens just to have Las Malvinas for their oil.
          The war only occured because the president of Argentina assumed as a woman she would be weak and so he attempted to take the islands by force. Thatcher asked the islanders what they wanted and she honoured it. (An Argentinian told me this)
          This also true for Belize, they simply prefer the protection of the UK to an invasion by Guatemala. No one is forcing them but independence is not an option for them because of their bad neighbours.

        11. Yes, there is no doubt on that. In fact, many reports have been made you know from the news channels and such, and pretty much all explain the same thing. The locals have no intention in becoming a part of argentina.
          But of course, because we have democracy(ugh) the government constantly complain about this, because it’s “their right”.

      2. Of course lefties and Feminists hate Margaret Thatcher remember her comments about socialism – “the problem with socialists is that they eventually run out of other peoples money” not to mention about women “they need to stop complaining and start achieving”.

        1. Jimmy Savile certainly didn’t “complain” when Thatcher was giving him “other people’s money”…………….

      3. Most successful women are conservative: meg whitman, carly fiorina, ayn rand, victoria ayling and suzanne evans. Even Merkel.

    3. She did say her frequent flier miles, during that time, were worth something. Carly Fiorina had to correct her by saying: “Flying is not an accomplishment, it’s an activity”.

  3. Hillary is done. Her campaign is stillborn.
    She has literally been caught punishing her own inferiors while she was head of the State Department for the very offense/crime that she was committing herself with her private e-mail server. And then she had the audacity to wipe the server while people wanted to investigate Benghazi and claim she wants to be president.
    She’s done. Her campaign is just going to be a celebration of herself. She’ll never be president.
    IF by some miracle she manages to get elected, then you know there is no educated electorate worth a damn in this country left. Just look at history to see what happened to nations that hit that point.
    I actually fully expect that if the democrats find someone who wants to run against her, that she won’t make it out of the primaries. Even if she doesn’t have much challenge to get the nomination, the republicans simply have too many loaded weapons against her.

    1. Hitllery will become president if the Elite and their Diebold “voting” machines want her to be president. It’s as simple as that.
      And, thus far, all signs are pointing to the Elite wanting her as President.

      1. I doubt that. They can find someone far less polarizing than her easily. They will simply find the 2016 version of obama to run against her and push their agenda, directly or otherwise.

        1. “I doubt that. They can find someone far less polarizing than her easily. They will simply find the 2016 version of obama to run against her and push their agenda, directly or otherwise.”
          It is hard to imagine anyone more polarizing than Obama. Almost half of America (the half that matters) thinks he’s: a foreign born Usurper, the Antichrist (or least, an antichrist), a traitor, a Marxist, a war-mongering fascist, a crypto Muslim, a black racist, incompetent, and/or insane, etc., etc., etc.

          Even official 2008 McCain ads were run with the theme of Obama as Messianic pretender (thus Antichrist figure).

        2. His polarizing past was kept under wraps until after the fact.
          The media is supposed to function as our unofficial 4th branch of integrity accountability but because they are so infested with marxists, feminists and a lot of other unpleasant “ists” they are basically in the tank with regard to professional progressives and their past.
          If people knew more about obama the senator they would be less likely to vote for obama for president.

      2. Unlikely I think. The ruling class likes her of course, but many Democrats got wiped out in the last election and thus the party has a very thin bench from which to choose. Her book tour was a flop and there is little indication at this point that she could get the votes needed to win in the general.

      1. Better tread lightly with that one.
        Elizabeth Warren had banksters quivering and wetting themselves when they tried to talk down to her.
        She’s tough as nails.

        1. that’s why you don’t talk down to equalists, you eradicate them
          the elite in your country need to improve on their bigotry

    2. Elizabeth Warren could easily take out Hillary and win the DNC Nomination.
      Yet she does seem adamant she won’t run if Hillary is a candidate. Perhaps she doesn’t want to be another number in the Clinton Body Count?
      Like you … I look at this campaign and acknowledge it’s a joke. She speaks of student loans, yet she charges $250K merely to SPEAK at a college. She talks about getting $ out of elections, yet her goal is to raise $2 BILLION.
      However, then I watch interviews with stupid single women — from college age to gals in their 40’s. They’re about to orgasm over Hillary. Forget how hypocritical she is. All they see is gender as qualification. Of course it’s “What she’ll do for ‘WOMENS RIGHTS.’”
      It can drive you mad. Watching these cunts always talking about what a candidate has to do for women while they’re NOT forced to register for the Selective Service in order to vote or receive student loans like us men are.
      We know what’s coming too. The left n their Cafeteria Equality slogans. Like, “No Uterus: No Opinion!”
      I’ve got one: “No Selective Service Requirement:No Opinion!”

  4. what happened to the days when runners for president had a long list of accomplishments that made them very suitable to run the great nation of America?

      1. Name me one country on the planet where scum doesn’t rise to the top. It’s no glitch of humanity, but a feature.

        1. This is why I advocate for the TOTAL destruction of the ‘system’, but whatever means necessary!!! I actually encourage people to get all the .gov freebies, handouts and money you can to help push this over the edge into absolute and total collapse, but do this knowing these bennies will not last and plan/prepare accordingly. We have LONG past the point of ‘fixing’ this mess by any means, all that if left to do is watch it play out and do the best you can to stay out of the line of fire as the collapse accelerates.
          So get ready my brothers as the next 5-10yrs will be quite spectacular indeed, and prepare to prosper on the other side of the years of ‘Blood & Struggles’, but never forget that we grow STRONG through contention and struggle, and the restoration of Balance to our world is upon us!!!

        2. At least in Russia they have good, nationalist scum at the top who actually operates in the best interest of the nation.
          In America we have scum who operate in the best interest of foreign banks. The “people” are just a minor nuisance to be managed.

        3. Be careful what you wish for. Any major economic collapse is likely to last for several decades and make the great depression look like a cakewalk. Furthermore, feminism will continue to exist and may even get more insane.
          The only thing that would eliminate feminism would be the complete and utter collapse of all of western civilization (e.g. major nuclear war). And at that, you wouldn’t see any benefits for several generations thereafter.
          In my crystal ball, I see the first outcome (major depression) as the most likely one in the next 5-15 years, alongside perpetual, proxy, non-nuclear war with the other great powers (Russia, China).
          This is realism, not pessimism or optimism.

        4. “non-nuclear war with the other great powers (Russia, China).”
          The thought the ordinary man once again has to jump into the trenches and put his life on the line to fight a war the global sociopathic elites started, sickens me. It has to stop.

        5. I disagree on the feminism will continue, Female nature will always continue, but feminism as we have known it will be abandoned with light speed as the collapse becomes more apparent to the fe[male]s of the species. Not saying they will return to being good ‘traditional’ wives, as that myth is pure rubbish. But for certain they will find their femininity real quick and be PLEADING for men to provide, protect and provision for them again which I will sit back and laugh at, as my eyes see them for what they truly are and not what I was ‘taught’ they are.
          Depression, no problem in my book, we NEED a great reset to separate the men from the boys of our society, I welcome it! Never forget that there was more street level wealth created during the depression than any other time in ‘meriKan [hi]story. For those of us that have seen this coming we should be fine, for others….not so much and frankly they are not my problem.
          I do not FEAR the struggle[s] ahead I welcome them, as during those time we will again truly “Earn” the right to live another day and find great value in doing so. Hopefully it will be the contention that returns Manliness to men again, as it is ONLY through contention that we grow stronger.
          Besides if the world really goes GTA, I have no prob with that either, 10yrs in Spec-Ops during the Gulf War[s], my skill set may have quite the value during those times, so either way I have my 6 covered as best as I can, hope more brothers will do the same. Be Well my friend!

        6. A depression on scale with what occurs on a typical day in a third world country would suffice to crush feminism. If there is no money for freebies like welfare, then men who knock up women and go about their business without paying child support are to be avoided.
          You will have a system in place where smart women will remain chaste until marriage. They will only marry men who are responsible, not sleep with men who are exciting. Free spirits don’t put food on the table. Survival and success goes with the men with the skill sets and means to provide. Going hungry sucks and in many parts of the world that is a dally reality.

        7. Possible, but I doubt it. In times of desperation people are far more likely to back radicals. That’s how the Nazis got into power following the hyperinflation of Germany in the 1920s. Feminist bullshit only attracts a crowd during times of abundance. When someone is wondering how they’re going to eat they could not care less about whether they’re using “hetero-normative” language. Stock up on guns. They’re quite valuable during a collapse.

        8. Just because women don’t often foolishly advertise it, don’t forget that they’re perfectly capable of packing their own protection these days.

        9. Even chimps have bloody battles in the jungle.
          —It seems females of every species generally have cooler heads than their male counterparts.

    1. maybe someday, in the name of diversity and multiculturalism, we’ll adopt saudi arabia’s method government

    2. Cripes! NONE of our leaders have been all they were cracked up to be.
      They’ve even found bodies buried in Benjamin Franklin’s cellar.

  5. I feel sorry for America for Obama. He showed SOME promise, and has been pretty much screwing the pooch for the last few years.
    I’d laugh right at them if they voted in Hillary. They would get just desserts if that is the pain they want to have.
    A woman should not be in that place of power. People laud on Thatcher…but talk to the people in England who are still reeling with the repercussions of her reign.
    As we all know, Logic is the needed characteristic in a leader. Logic to see outcomes, to have balanced views, and to drop the hammer when push comes to shove. Logic is an extremely rare trait in any woman, despite schooling or education. This is where professional SJW women come from. Education, but lack of logic, ruled by emotions.

    1. Laugh all you like, America’s elections are very nearly as rigged as the ‘people’s democratic republic of (fill in the blank).
      Blaming Americans for their president is like Blaming prisoners for who their warden is.

  6. behind every woman’s success there’s a man
    edit : Behind every woman’s success, there are regiment of white knight (and sometime there are men too)

    1. actually, there’s more like thousands of men smoothing the way, making it possible for her to get to a place where success is even possible, and competing with her enemies for her.

      1. I fully agree friend, but I was just correcting that saying -I mean bullshit- “behind every man’s success there’s a woman”

        1. Actually, women ARE behind a man’s success frequently… Not in an assisting capacity, but a purely motivational one.
          Getting laid has always been the greatest motivator of mankind since the moment we crawled out of the slime.

        2. only if you put it that way
          but there are men who achieved great thing just because they felt they are meant to, and are uninterested in pussy.
          mostly autistic male, like Alan Turing for example

        3. How ironic, when looked at in the context of gender superiority, that Turing was subjected to hormonal castration, and that a woman was awarded the top prize in mathematics last year.

  7. All presidents past, present and future are not elected they are selected. It’s no a hidden secret that a number of U.S presidents were Freemasons and that most of them are actually related to each other by blood. This right and left paradigm is an illusion to give the people a perceived choice of who gets to rule over them. The puppet masters control both sides and if the people aren’t happy with one side they give them the choice to go with the other side. Both are controlled. There is no such thing as a true democracy.
    If Hilary wins it’s because the controllers in the shadows decided it was the right time for a female president. Just as they thought it was the right time for a black president. To give the people a new hope, a new carrot to chase after. To persuade them that everything will work out and that there is no economic crash coming.

    1. Lol he’s clearly NOT giving the Grip of the Entered Apprentice(thumb isn’t on first knuckle), so you can settle the fuck down and go outside or something.

    2. It is concerning the way Hillary and the MSM are acting like she’s already won 2016. And that all she has to do is simply show up for the process.
      I’ve thought for a few years now elections in this country are rigged.
      Let’s be realistic. Anyone with an ounce of common sense looks at this campaign and recognizes there’s no way this broad should have chance at actually contending. This campaign is a joke.
      If she actually wins 2016, I’ll be convinced elections are rigged.

  8. Americans are looking down the barrel of pure aristocratic rule. Let’s look at a possible scenario in 2016: Clinton v. Bush. That would mean that save for 8 years, america will be ruled/has been ruled by two families, longer if you take into account Bush Sr. as VP and CIA director.
    This is like a three card Monte game, and squabbling over the right card to pick while ignoring the big picture: the entire game is rigged, and the house wins.
    It doesn’t really matter who wins in 2016, whomever it is they will not be representing you.

    1. Clinton (or Bush) in 2016 (likely)
      Clinton (or Bush) in 2020 (likely)
      Young Clinton whore in 2024 (hey, it rhymes! There’s the campaign slogan right there!)
      Spawn of Jeb/Dubya in 2030
      Aristocracy? Sure, why not, I’m sure the Founders had this in mind.

        1. History suggests that you’re correct. It’s why the Founders rejected Democracy.

    1. Sure, but there’s only one thing guys are really “needed” for and once that itch is scratched they should be helpful or get out of the way.

        1. The majority of women are just as competitive as any Alpha male, they’ve just learned it’s more productive in the long run to be subtle.
          Leaving self-important bloviators teetering on highly visible pedestals is a handy way to keep your eye on them while going about your business, and it keeps them so darn happy.

  9. Hillary Clinton? Hmm that name sounds familiar. She used to be quite the cattle futures trader, if I recall correctly.

    1. I’ve asked many Commodity Traders about her incredible success in commodity futures. They all say the same thing, Impossible. I say what if she really was that good, like some kind of commodity savant. Wouldn’t that make her the smartest person in the world? Some feminists call her the world’s smartest woman, maybe it’s true.

  10. One of the most successful female politicians, Thatcher, is also one of the most vilified by the pop culture machine … go figure.

    1. Because she was a conservative – which just goes to prove that feminism is Marxism with panties. The only time feminists will bail on a woman is if she leans conservative. Otherwise, they will support her no matter what she does – kill her babies, make false rape accusations, yada, yada, yada…

        1. Speaking of panties, Thatcher’s best friend Jimmy Savile had a large collection of them scattered throughout his home that he’d taken from underaged victims over the years.

        2. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Trying to derail with irrelevant ad hominems about people none of us have heard of or care about?

        3. A little derailment can prevent a collision down the line when the wrong track is taken.
          —Those who use Margaret Thatcher as an example of worthy female leadership are certain to end up with an egg-smeared face if they refuse to school themselves on the subject of Jimmy Savile, because the two are undeniably intertwined with each other, and their stinking trail extends to our shores.
          — For whatever rea$on, the US press lags far behind their British counterparts in exposing the alarming depths top politicians have gone to protect (and often partake in) the ghoulish, increasingly widespread crime of organized pedophilia.
          —It’s time for anyone with a protective bone in their body to catch up with some extremely disturbing things that have been known to the rest of the world for an embarrassingly long time.
          —The UK has large, organized clusters of protected, high-level pedophiles… and so do we.
          These predators are more of an actual, ever-present, long-term THREAT to our nation’s future than bands of scraggly foreign terrorists could ever be.
          —Does The Franklin Coverup, Lt Colonel Michael Aquino, Jerry Sandusky, and the Paul Bonacci settlement ring a bell? If not they sure as hell should. They’re all connected and just the tip of the dung heap festering right under our noses.
          With a modicum of research, you’d soon realize this issue far outweighs any other.

        4. Anyone daft enough to take that manipulative directive seriously might as well voluntarily lock themselves in an echo chamber.
          —There’s great danger in propping up a facade that cloaks evil.
          Dangerous and intellectually lazy.

        5. Wrong. If Hitler claimed 1+1=2 that statement isn’t automatically wrong just because he’s Hitler. A bad person can still construct a sound and rational argument. You must still disprove their argument. Hence your fallacy. Stooping to ad hominems is intellectually lazy, and is a tactic meant to undermine rational debate. You are free to invent your own “logic,” but don’t be surprised when you end up with some fucked up conclusions.

        6. You are likewise free to trust leaders of despicable character, but you can’t force your gullibility down the throats of others who recognize that the foulest schemes can be disguised as rational.
          —A person who would befriend and protect pedophiles is capable of sugar-coating all manner of evil.

        7. Ad homiem. Privately, she could be the worst person in the world, but that doesn’t mean her political policies are wrong. It really doesn’t matter what you say, you still have to attack her policies rather than her moral failings (real or imagined). Learn basic reasoning.

        8. You’d be in a better position to lecture about basic reasoning if you had a shred of common sense.
          History has never been kind to those who trust the policies of unconscionable scoundrels.

        9. Ad hominem. A person’s moral failings (real or imagined) has nothing to do with the quality of their policies.

        10. It’s as irrational to trust protectors of perversion to form policies of quality, as it is to defend them against critics with ad nauseam cries of ad hominem.

        11. It’s irrational to think someone’s past has any relevance on the validity of their political positions. If you have a problem with their policies then attack their policies. If you want me to stop calling you out on your ad hominem fallacies, then stop committing them.

        12. Your naive compartmentalization of the vilest of subhuman behaviour doesn’t inspire confidence in your ability to make rational decisions in your own life, let alone judge the rationality of views reached by others.
          What adults agree to do with each other in private is of little consequence, but it is the height of irrational thinking to trust the motivation behind policies hatched by someone who could knowingly befriend and protect a prolific rapist of children.

        13. Ad hominem. If Hitler stated 1+1=2, is that equation wrong simply because Hitler is a bad person? Keep desperately trying to rephrase and twist those ad homs into a rational-sounding argument…

        14. Your own desperation is apparently fueling your repetitious attempts at portraying one of history’s most manipulative ghouls as possibly rational when not preaching genocide.
          — Hitler was a raging lunatic who’s murderous “equations” clearly reflected his thoroughly putrid nature, and although Thatcher’s policies were a tad more subtle, she methodically weakened the working class backbone of her homeland and tossed it to the worst of the ruling class and their groveling jesters to use as a chew toy.
          History’s taught us it’s a huge mistake to ignore foul connections that motivate stratagems that invariably overlap, no matter how gussied up they appear.

        15. If you think Thatcher’s policies hurt the working class, then you should try attacking details about her policies instead of associating her with a pedophile. The latter of which is an ad hominem fallacy, and is irrelevant to the quality of her policies. Period.

        16. Who needs to be told by now that deregulating profit-obsessed industries, slashing protection of labor, and allowing unconscionably craven banksters to run amuck has proven to be an unmitigated disaster for the working class?
          Thatcher’s unthinking mimicry of Reagan’s cockamamie theories was ultimately as irrational and destructive as her blind devotion to Jimmy Savile (which oddly enough led to eerily similar front page headlines revealing pedophilia in both Parliament and the White House.)
          “Birds of a feather flock together”…and leave their droppings everywhere.

        17. How ironic to be directed to a site known mainly for combating Holocaust denial by someone intent on weakly defending the deductive reasoning ability of Adolph Hitler with imaginary suppositions.
          It’s particularly amusing in light of the fact you’ve failed to offer a single premise (valid or otherwise) to back up your support for Margaret Thatcher’s policies, which you seem woefully unaware of, while labeling the widely acknowledged examples I’ve provided as fallacies without any counter argument other than inappropriate cries of ad hominem when conclusions don’t happen to fit your misguided hero worship.

        18. Go back and read our conversation. I never attempted to defend Thatcher’s policies, because I’m not English and could not care less about English politics. I called you out on your bullshit because ad homs are 100% bullshit, no matter what their context is. An Ad Hom is the same all over the world. Your attempt to cast doubt on my character with accusations of “hero worship” (even though you know nothing about me) is an Ad Hominem. Learn how to debate.

        19. Your nationality is as irrelevant as your unschooled opinions and persistently pointless criticism, none of which have the impact you narcissistically believe.
          By childishly repeating baseless accusations of “BS” and “ad hominem” you’ve cornered yourself into revealing an abysmally weak grasp of politics caused by your admitted lack of interest.

        20. Learn how to think for yourself if you want to be taken seriously.
          Endlessly repeating terms you don’t comprehend doesn’t constitute debate.

        21. “Learn how to think for yourself…terms you don’t comprehend…”
          Ad hominem. Keep endlessly using the same fallacy over and over again, expecting I won’t notice it or call you out. Learn how to debate.

        22. What you’re failing to see is that an Ad Hominem attack is one that’s made against your OPPONENT in an attempt to undermine their argument, NOT against the SUBJECT of the argument, which in this case is Margaret Thatcher, whose inaction in the face of horrific crimes committed by her closest friends, appointees and colleagues is most definitely a relevant factor in determining her overall worthiness as a leader.
          While my character as a mere observer is completely irrelevant to the argument, Thatcher’s behavior and that of her cronies are major considerations in assessing what influenced and motivated her chosen policies and lackadaisical reaction to their repercussions.
          —-It’s ridiculous to think such things have no bearing in judging an individual’s true nature. If a person’s connections and past behavior were of no import then no one would ever bother asking for character references.
          Simply put, it is NO FALLACY to state that the children of the UK weren’t at all safe in Thatcher’s circle, and it doesn’t get much lower than that.

        23. A person’s flaws have no effect on the validity of their political arguments or policies. Period. Let’s make that clear. I never wrote that a person’s moral failures should not effect their elect-ability. You either misunderstood or are attempting a strawman. However, Thatcher isn’t running for office. She actually has a track record. Thus you can not say that Thatcher’s policies do not work because she allegedly defends child molesters. You could argue that she is unfit to lead again, but that doesn’t appear to be the argument that you’re making.

        24. The gist of my argument is that Thatcher’s legacy has been previously based on the fallacy that she was EVER a leader of strength or independently motivated judgment.
          While every human being has various flaws, some are so clearly indicative of an inexcusably cavalier disregard for the well-being of others that the inevitably foul ramifications can’t be ignored. History has taught us not to turn a blind eye to the signs of complicit depravity in our leaders that could allow evil to fester without raising a finger to stop it.
          What good are we as a species if we refuse to demand the protection of the world’s children?
          All other issues pale in comparison.

        25. If you’d follow the droppings that lead directly to the steaming mess we’ve been left to shovel our way out of, you’d be hard pressed to explain how Reagan and Thatcher’s delusional theories have led to anything other than economic disaster.

    1. Indeed. The very definition of a politician is parasite. Hillary is simply one of a number that seek political power.

  11. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!
    And what message does this teach to little girls… marry some up-and-coming guy, put up with his bullshit and you can go far in life.
    That’s what modern feminism has been reduced to.

    1. Ever since “no-fault” divorce laws were implemented to make lawyer’s lives more leisurely profitable, marriage has become less secure than a business deal sealed with a wink and a handshake.

  12. I sincerely hope this old wench will not win the elections. Somebody, ANYBODY is better than a woman who did not accomplish anything, did not create anything, spews stupidest femicunt bullshit and yet still, for some reason, wants to be the president of the most powerful country in the world.
    P.S. Just so you know how retarded this woman is:

        1. Yes, even though Germany has to whore its asshole out to Israel in perpetuity for something almost 80 years old now.

    1. A woman who despised feminism and insisted on getting there on merit. I think it was Reagan who said she was the only man in British politics. If she had to fight harder, and let’s be honest women at the time (*unlike today) did in politics, she was the type to relish the challenge.
      She got there on merit, never cried or asked for special privileges for being a woman and consequently the feminists hate her; tells you everything you need to know about them.

      1. Not everyone likes MT (antifemasis would be one lol) but i do at least respect the fact that she got by on her own merits, like Jimmy said.

        1. Meh. She isn’t going to be liked by everyone on the manosphere but as i said, we can at least respect her for getting by on her merits.

        2. Thatcher relished surrounding herself with flagrant pedophiles.
          Jimmy Savile, Leon Brittan, Peter Morrison, Derek Laud…..
          She clucked over all of them like a possessive mother hen.
          Her protection of these and many other ghoulish predators enabled the rape and torture of countless children.

        3. Hmm. It seems you are for the most part, correct. Thatcher is undeserving of any adulation, given her questionable motives.
          I have nothing more to say. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. *taps shield*

        4. Thatcher was an awesome woman who did a difficult job without resorting to childish behaviour of many politicians. I greatly admire her strength.
          The frequency of pedophiles in government, media and the church in the british isles is too large to hold her accountable for their existence while she was running the country. You could make your statement true for whoever else they may have chosen as their leader at the time.
          Most of the Tory paedophiles learned this behaviour in their upper class boarding schools from their peers, and I do not think you can expect a woman of her solid determination to turn into a screaming SJW at the unproved rumours at the time.

        5. It takes no particular strength to devise policies guaranteed to decimate the working class while allowing the underprivileged children such conditions inevitably produce to be brutalized by the deviant elites who most benefit from economic disparity.

        6. So this never ever happened before Thatcher? You are blaming her for the abuse you suffered as a child?
          It’s not your fault, you know that dont you.

        7. It seems you’re the one having difficulty facing this subject, Sam, or you wouldn’t be compelled to respond with amateur psyhco-babble.
          Thatcher’s responsible for allowing the torment to be carried out right under her nose. Anyone who ignores or enables child rape is complicit.

        8. I just said I was not ignoring the issue of your pedophile experience. And that experience was not your fault. Please seek help.

        9. Your awkward delusion would be more amusin’
          if it didn’t suggest a hidden collusion.
          Cowards divert to excuse their inaction
          As the guilty wallow in vile satisfaction.

        10. And that’s why you need to blame a dead woman for pedophilia?
          It wasnt your fault, you have no guilt to pass on elsewhere.

        11. Your vain attempts at deflection rather than facing Thatcher’s complicity in the horror are not what casts blame on the dead woman and her equally dead pedo chums.
          She brought that all on herself.

        12. So do you have any evidence for this, all I can see is pedoparanoia stories by anti conservative newspapers written just after her death. It doesnt seem very balanced.
          What with all the news these last few years flushing out so many old cases of media pedos hushed up by the BBC, and the parallel exposure of the problems in the Catholic church, I would think any news that the prime minister at the time, so cruelly hated, actually knew of this, it would undoubtedly have been all over the news by now. The media would be almost killing each other to get the scoop if there was a genuine whiff of evidence of this.
          But I was away for a while, did I miss this massive media event?
          I mean everyone thought Saville was a pedo, I never liked him, he looked all wrong, but no one actually thought he actually was until we saw Louis Theroux go visit him. Then it was obvious he was a class 1 woman hating lives with his mother never had a girlfriend nut job, and the lid blew off the whole thing. Sometimes people just need a kick to see the difference.
          Future Tory politicians of school age are all fags at some point, its a strange cultural thing, but it has existed for ever. What makes Thatcher, who never went to these schools, more responsible than any other tory politician who knew and particpated in the weird social hierarchies of the upper classes?
          Abd does this make Bill Clinton and George Bush responsible for Michael Jackson?

        13. Clinton’s Monicagate and Bush’s Gannongate were unsavory but didn’t put them in close proximity with Michael Jackson, who’s character was far was more comparable to Mr. Rogers than to Thatcher’s constant companion, Jimmy Saville or her scurvy cabinet members..
          As for the lack of press coverage, we’re long past the point where we can depend on the media to report much beyond what they’re allowed by their handful of corporate owners. Nothing can be thoroughly assessed these days without the continuous cross-referencing of facts from multiple sources. The most highly promoted are often the least trustworthy. The more obscure the better. (The long-banned, but now available on YouTube, documentary “THE FRANKLIN COVERUP” is a prime example.)
          If you dare to fully delve into the subject of organized pedophilia it will have to involve time and energy because a great many powerful people are intent on covering it up. Its tendrils reach far beyond parliament. The pieces of the puzzle aren’t easy to come by but well worth the trouble.
          Thatcher was portrayed as a tower of strength when in reality her policies were dictated by elites behind the scenes whose perversions depend on the vulnerability caused by economic disparity. She was an unconscionable tool.

        14. A rant about US politics and coverups is not evidence. You have no evidence.
          Saville was a creepy man, skilled in appearing to be a benevolent eccentric to all but those men who worked closely with him and joined in his dark behaviour.
          If the BBC did not sack him, if Broadmoor did not ban him, how would she be the only one to see through the lies? None of this came to light until long after. Only the low level staff in the hospitals had a clue, they did what they could in a slow moving beurocratic system. I am suprised the then director of the BBC is not under serious investigation, but it is past. Blame and then fix the system, not a dignified unscandalous diplomatic individual who had much other work to do.
          “Thatcher was portrayed as a tower of strength when in reality her policies were dictated by elites behind the scenes whose perversions depend on the vulnerability caused by economic disparity.”
          Clearly she is not responsible if you are saying her policies were not even her own. The best you can say is she was a fool.
          There is no evidence she was complicit or corrupt.
          No one is denying paedophilia exists, by all means continue on in your mission to blow the whistle on currently active paedophiles and systems that are not able to police it. Work on changing the system.
          But it wasnt Thatchers fault any more than it was yours. Slandering dead women will not change your past.

        15. He met them, They had photos taken together, they liked him. They were in charge of the entire country therefore it is their fault for failing to manage him.

        16. You’d avoid Mr. Roger’s neighborhood, yet excuse Maggie for not getting the chills from daily contact with Jimmy Saville?

        17. Firstly, She had to work around many public school men men chasing power and trying to manipulate her. How is she expected to know the difference?
          Secondly, I would avoid Mr Rogers neighbourhood. I would not, what exactly? Sack him, put him on a register of creepy people, slander him because I didnt like the look of him. Join in with rumors I know nothing about.
          You still have failed to give any reason why Thatcher is responsible. You are saying nothing new and offering no evidence and doing nothing for your true cause. Whether this is erradicating paedophilia or trying to make Thatcher the most hated woman in the world and not just Britain, I do not know, but neither will occur through your ravings here.

        18. Systems like Thatcher’s that methodically subjugate the working class while catering exclusively to uber-rich elites inevitably create conditions that are ripe for all manner of abuse. The main reason Sir Jimmy Savile was protected and lavishly rewarded was because he provided high-level pedophiles with a steady stream of vulnerable, underprivileged children from sources he was given indefensible access to. His charities were a cover. Only the public were kept in the dark about his true nature.
          —Fmr. Prime Minister Thatcher was repeatedly warned about Savile, knew he’d acted as pimp for her predecessor, Edward Heath, and was well aware her fully-vetted pal had hundreds of sexual abuse charges recorded against him in dozens of police districts over a period of decades, yet she still coerced officials to forgo regulatory screening procedures and qualification requirements so her “darling Jimmy” would have unrestricted private access to morgues, hospitalized children and psychiatric patients at all hours of day and night.
          She also relentlessly pestered Sir Robert Armstrong and his successor to have Savile knighted, even though both made it clear why the idea was unthinkable and thoroughly repulsive. It took some doing, but she obviously got her way.
          The proof’s in the pudding, Sam.

        19. Thatcher certainly wasn’t the only leader who turned a blind eye to pedophilia within her rank and file, but she was notably eager to promote, protect and party with one of its most obvious practitioners.

        20. Well heck, Presidents and Prime ministers are all knowing and omnipresent right? That’s why I vote em in..

        21. Now you are escalating the gossip to a higher level. It is convenient that this information has not been released to the public as you would of course not be able to provide your source, nor have any evidence of this yourself.
          Feel free to say whatever you like about Saville, though I’d rather not even have to read his name, the question is and shall remain, What is your evidence, even one article with something beyond gossip will do, that Thatcher was not simply fooled by his manipulative ways.
          Your opinion about her subjugation of the working classes is not relevant here, if you wanted to insult her abilities as prime minister you should have started and ended on that, although it seems to me if you are correct about her intentions, perhaps she was an effective leader.
          You claimed she was complicit in protecting paedophiles during her time in power. You have not provided a shred of evidence for this. You are a gossip, nothing more.

        22. Any leader at the time would have had to work with these people. Many people were fooled, she was not involved in the cover up and she did not listen to unsubtanciated rumours. There were many other, less busy people who could have done something about this problem.
          This conversation is going in circles. This has all been said. Your lack of evidence thus far is sufficient for me to discount anything further you have to say.

        23. Where have you been, man?
          Although it’s true most of the US media is owned by corporate gluttons who wouldn’t want Thatcher’s disgrace well publicized, that’s no excuse for being totally unaware of what the rest of the world has strongly suspected for ages, now all backed up by documents and letters released by the British National Archives.
          It’s finally been proven that Thatcher knew very well what was going on and not only covered up the pedophilia of Jimmy Savile, she methodically used her power to do likewise for scads of other perverse characters she’d chosen to saturate her close-knit circle with.
          A few names immediately spring to mind because top British papers have been all over the issue which has festered for decades and is finally being fully exposed. Thatcher’s Home Secretary Leon Brittan, diplomat Peter Hayman, and “trusted” lieutenant Peter Morrison, among many others. Apparently the hard-hearted “Iron Lady” had no problem making pedophiles, necromaniacs, and serial killers her closest associates.
          Several reputable people have testified the Prime Minister was continuously warned about these ghouls, but seemed not at all shocked or surprised, and went on to socialize with, promote and share delicate government secrets with them.
          This is unsavory but all a matter of public record.

        24. Cripes! It’s no wonder you have a skewered view of things. The American media has failed to address the similar comfort with depravity Thatcher’s buddy Reagan showed since way back in the 80s when pedophilia in the White House made headlines.
          Check out The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Daily Beast and other prominent British publications if you want the truth about issues within the UK.

        25. Just enter “Margaret Thatcher protected pedophiles” and a whole slew of them will pop up.

        26. As mentioned in a Much earlier post. I did that already myself, I have previously found those papers to be very biased. The least biased ones have much less to say on the matter.
          I would like to know where You in particular found your convincing evidence which you claim exists.
          Can you not see that for me to have a clear rational mind and excercise proper critical thinking, It is you I must also question.
          After so many askings you will not provide me with an example article that you can stand behind in your belief of its truth.

        27. How much proof do you need? Thatcher’s actions have made the rounds through all the London press and the outrage continues to build as more lurid details of necrophilia and snuff deaths are exposed.
          — If you’d done a speck of reasonable research you’d realize how useless it is to dismiss the still unfolding debacle. Even Thatcher loyalists have given up disputing it.
          —Are you actually insinuating the BRITISH NATIONAL ARCHIVES forged the documents that clearly prove Thatcher knowingly protected pedophiles ?…..and that every British newspaper that has given an honest account of her foibles by printing those documents must be biased because they don’t make excuses for her?
          If the US media likewise reported direct TESTIMONY and showed OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS proving Obama had similarly used his power to shut down investigations on multiple charges of pedophilia against friends and members of his cabinet, would you consider them biased for doing so?

        28. There has been no proof, only your statements of opinion which seem to consist of the retelling of media scandal. A thing often distrusted in the UK.
          Also necrophilia is new, you are again escalating without having provided any support for your original more easily believable ideas. This does not add the weight to your original premise that you hoped it would.
          I am not insinuating that the national british archives are wrong, I am saying I have found no way to access this information via the internet.
          Please recount your story of how you were able to access this information so that I might decide for myself what are the salient facts and what are your extrapolations regarding the ‘foibles’ of an otherwise dedicated hard working, if somewhat naive, prime minister.
          Regarding bias, If I read US newspapers that told stories and recounted gossip that Obama had shot down investigations regarding pedophilia by his colleagues, I would cross reference the information and apply critical thinking and consider the agenda of the newspapers. If I found that all their previous opinions of Obama were negative and unbalanced, then yes, I would consider them biased.

        29. If you’d take the time to cross reference info from various sources regarding reports about Obama, then by all means do the same with Thatcher.
          Critical thinking is a developed skill that requires letting go of the ego when discovering facts that don’t fit comfortable, preconceived notions, We’re living in revelatory times that will occasionally flummox anyone facing the world with their eyes wide open.
          I take no pleasure in viewing long-withheld, forcibly disclosed official documents that indisputably show the Prime Minister through her stand down orders enabled the continuation of pedophilia so vile it defies description, arrogantly committed not just by her closest cronies, but also by her opponents, including her predecessor, Edward Heath.
          — Organized pedophilia isn’t just a problem in the UK. It’s grown into a worldwide problem because people like Thatcher who have been in a position to stop it have instead chosen to cowardly encourage it by protecting their wealthy, out-of-control comrades from prosecution. It’s particularly repulsive that by most accounts, Thatcher cultivated and reveled in their boastful, cravenly selfish company, and actively fought all attempts made by those in positions beneath her to expose and rightfully imprison them.
          — She certainly “worked” very hard at fashioning a false front of naivete while guarding her sadistic flock. It’s tragic that she didn’t direct that level of effort toward strengthening the English working class so they and their families would be less vulnerable to the evils “whims” of the privileged class.
          — The convoluted amendments she herself made on official requests for investigations along with ample records of correspondence from high-level witnesses, social workers, physicians and surviving victims she chose to callously ignore, show a self-serving agenda of horrific proportion.
          — The longer this subject is researched, I’m afraid you’ll find it far more difficult to present proof of any value Thatcher brought, and shockingly easy to prove the multiple layers of destruction.

        30. Dont lecture me like I am a fool. Your tactic is transparent. Tell me where You got Your information or be quiet.
          My research in the bias of UK newpapers has been achieved by 47 years of living there and reading newspapers. I am fully aware of the political agenda of each and take nothing at face value.
          This is a discussion about female leaders, not about how prolific paedophilia is worldwide. Go on your way and fight against pedophilia, people will join you. But to imply that Thatcher is somehow specifically responsible for this is wrong.
          You may substitute here for your failure to provide evidence of her complicity, with evidence that you have been rallying support for your cause in other discussion threads that also have nothing to do with paedophilia.
          With this information I may determine whether you are as not as full of bull as you appear to be.
          So herefornow I will say one last time, because I mean it.
          What happened in your past was not your fault and you should not be feeling the obvious overwhelming need to project that blame elsewhere.
          That you feel it was your mothers fault for ignoring the clues and warnings, is entirely your own decision.
          That you want to fight pedophiles now as an adult because you were too weak to as a child is a good thing.
          Dont waste your energy arguing online. Do something.
          What happened was not your fault. But if you choose to blame others instead, that is your fault.

        31. Ok. I just entered that phrase with a different polititian. Someone I thought was above this kind of suspicion.
          A whole slew of things popped up.
          So I picked another name. Same deal.
          It seems to me all the politicians are in on it.
          So, how Is one to know the difference between the truth and the rumours?
          And why would you obsess on one particular politician to blame?

        32. Now you’ve simply exposed yourself as determinedly dishonest at best, or defensively complicit at worst. In the long run, it matters little.
          The veil is rising.

        33. So having never received any sources from you that you can say you trust, I enter the terms of your search in the internet, crosscheck like I said I would, and you say I am exposing myself as dishonest.
          I have consistently asked you how you blame Thatcher specifically for a system that existed before her and continued after her, and you have escalated the whole thing and never once answered my question, now you get defensive and effectively accuse me of holocaust denial.
          You look like a raving fool. You had many chances to avoid this.
          You should talk to someone about how to best help yourself with your mother issue. It is important that you heal properly if you are to go on and right any wrongs in the world.

        34. Your childish attempts at projection, distraction and distortion are most likely what makes you feel like a fool being lectured to. It’s odd that, out of all the incendiary comments around us, you’d be most vexed by one that is simply responding to the misguided admiration of the former Prime Minister by pointing out that her facade is rapidly crumbling due to her being more intent on protecting her pedophile pals than the kiddies they cruelly preyed on. This recently exposed, wholly inexcusable lack of character, judgment, and conscience will now be part of Margaret Thatcher’s permanent legacy, as it should be. Whatever has caused you to stubbornly cling to your fallen false idol is anyone’s guess, and something only a fool would attempt to dissect over the internet.

        35. Calm down, Sam and take a deep breath.
          You’re obviously having a tough time going through Thatcher withdrawal and while it may temporarily relieve your anxiety to keep repeating your wild delusions regarding my upbringing, it only serves to raise questions about whether you’re having trouble dealing with your own parental issues and subsequent instability.
          You’d feel much better if you’d actually do the research you’ve erroneously claimed to have done, then face the hard facts and move on.
          The world won’t come crashing down if you let go of your unhealthy infatuation.

        36. Youd look better if you provided evidence for your wild claims of your own unhealthy obsession with blaming a single individual for what is clearly a long standing self supporting system of mass coverups.
          I simply dont see how you hold one dead woman responsible for a nation of paedophiles.

        37. No, just pushing for some rational sanity on your part. You are the one that focusses on an individual source of blame through information they gained from the internet rather than considering the more difficult bigger picture.
          You assume she is my idol because to you it justfies my disagreement with you without you having to face the fact that, her guilt notwithstanding, you are a raging left wing SJW jumping on the bandwaggon of a righteous cause.

        38. When Thatcher’s name is naively mentioned in glowing terms it is imperative to direct attention to the foul consequences of her unconscionable actions AND inaction. She was certainly not alone in enabling organized pedophilia to flourish, but she was undeniably one of its most powerful defenders.

        39. So, tell me, Sam, what is remotely rational about your thinking you know better than every major news source in Great Britain?
          And how Is it rational to doggedly defend Thatcher’s pedo-pandering while dismissing a mountain of solid evidence from multiple sources, INCLUDING the National Archives?
          It’s hardly logical to excuse Thatcher’s repulsive stance by saying everyone was doing it, and incredibly sinister to suggest looking at the “big picture” would somehow make her ignoring the rape and torture of children more palatable.
          The world needs Warriors, but not the sort who would defend the cavalier allowance of the WORST social INJUSTICE demonic minds are capable of conjuring.

        40. Are we not done yet? We are at an impasse, we have differing opinions, you have not convinced me. I am not interested in a debate on who is most rational or capable of critical thinking or god forbid this sinks to the level of emotional accusations about spelling mistakes.
          Let it go now. The comment to interest ratio is pretty low for me. I shall just have to go on the dubious authority of the daily mail, some random guy on the internet, and my own mind.

        41. Thatcher unwittingly predicted her own historic disgrace when she said “We stand on principle or we don’t stand at all.”

        42. Your mind can’t make a relevant assessment without being flexed.
          If you’d bothered to do more than one-stop surfing you’d at the very least be aware that The Daily Mail is only one among countless others that have and will continue to report the major revelation that Margaret Thatcher was not at all the “Iron Lady” her former legacy purported her to be.
          In fact, considering the unspeakable torture done to children during her watch the name takes on a whole new meaning, something political cartoonists will likely make macabre use of as the story inevitably spreads.

        43. Then give me a link to a source in a reputable paper and I will read it. This has always been my singular point. Your desire to accuse me of being incapable of thought is based on my refusal to take your word on face value, your perspective that I am a thatcher fan boy is based on the opposition to your statement that one singular leader was responsible for it more than any other.
          That is all I disagree with – the emphasis of blame on a single individual as if to detract attention from the true problem. Like once everyone agrees how terrible Thatcher was, all the corruption will suddenly stop?
          You have been much too busy arguing back to see what I have been disagreeing with.
          Still you have repeated your point many times. We have gone in circles. I am wasting too much time on someone with too much focus on a specific and blind to the broader picture.
          So are you done?

        44. By connecting the dots that form the broader picture, it becomes quite evident that people in powerful positions around the world have allowed organized pedophilia to grow to alarming proportions, for various reasons ranging from personal leverage, control through blackmail or callous disregard and possibly similar interest.
          These “individuals” are all connected, and as the craven actions of each one is exposed it will start a chain reaction that will drop them like dominoes.
          That’s why the cover-up has been so well funded and intensely defended at high levels…..BUT finally coming to light despite the weasels’ best efforts.
          It became evident from the beginning of our discussion that no amount of info sent your way would be enough to mold that stubborn “singular point” of yours into a more reasonable shape, so perhaps you should just cover it with a cap and find a corner to hibernate in until someone comes along who’s willing to spoonfeed links to you that you’ll likely just spit back out since it’ll be near impossible to find ANY defensive of Thatcher’s choice to consciously enable the torment of tykes.

        45. — There’s no longer any dispute that Thatcher’s close party companion and frequent houseguest, Jimmy Savile, abused both boys and girls, at times in their necrotic state because of the inexplicably untethered 24 hr. access to hospitals and mortuaries his highest-level friends gained for him, including overnight on-site lodging with his own full set of keys.
          — Even more than other outrageous pedophiles in Margaret Thatcher’s cozy circle, Savile recklessly left a trail of his atrocities a mile wide.
          — During the years this debacle has continued to unfold, the citizens of the UK have stridently demanded it be treated seriously, and although the majority of the corporate-owned press in the States have so far skirted around the shattering impact the story will inevitably have on existing power structures and legacies, the enormity of it will not be contained indefinitely.

        46. This all sounds extremely childish to me. As I have explained, my question was on your need to blame a dead woman for it all, and your subsequent failure to make much sense.
          You have then gone on to ecalate the issue, accused me of being incapable of thought, rationality and emotion. All to avoid the original subject of Thatcher being a perfectly competent politician when compared with other politicians.
          I see what people mean about the irrational SJWs now.

        47. Holding a Prime Minister personally accountable for continuously misusing her power by blocking pedophilia investigations involving friends and appointees known for their vicious sadism is what should be expected of sane members of adult society.
          When thinking of the unheard terrified screams that were greatly multiplied because of Thatcher’s wanton ineptitude and PROMOTION of child torturers to the highest ranks, it’s hard to imagine a spot in hell hot enough for her.

        48. See? If one was ‘continuously misusing their power’ by blocking something, they wouldnt have had any time at all to deal with wars or frequently striking unions or to become Reagans puppet’.
          You are guilty of exageration. You do not sound calm.

        49. Judging from the documents and correspondence released by the National Archives, arrogantly ordering an end to the series of uncomfortably close pedophile investigations was accomplished without Maggie breaking into a sweat.
          — As for the other ultimately destructive ventures you’ve listed, it turns out Thatcher’s talent for doing what could reasonably be termed the “devil’s work” was among the few things she was truly adept at, ( but it’s now apparent she had a hefty load of diabolical guidance to ease her through it.)

        50. Please, Ive never said this before in my life but Im not even reading your posts anymore.
          You sound insane. If you are not a troll Seek help with you ever meanderung campaign of hate, otherwise STFU and go get a real soapbox.

        51. In other words, the corner you’ve painted yourself into has become uncomfortable and rather than simply facing the disturbing reality surrounding Thatcher’s crumbling facade, you’ve instead chosen to further weaken your argument by hissing at the nearest source of your discomfort.
          —Thankfully, others will have the strength to look without flinching at the growing evidence that clearly indicates Margaret Thatcher, through her documented protection of the active pedophiles known throughout her circle, was an accessory to their unspeakably sadistic crimes against the vulnerable children they viewed as disposable.
          —The serious depravity of the situation calls into question the motivations behind EVERY action the former Prime Minister took while in office.

        52. Increasingly brave members of the press throughout Great Britain have published files from the country’s National Archives that, although presently heavily censored, clearly show Thatcher’s active involvement in stopping official pedophilia/homicide investigations that threatened to expose people in her immediate circle and beyond.

      2. Birds of a feather flock together and the “Gipper” greatly enjoyed hobnobbing with the “Iron Lady” and her criminally frisky friends, so it isn’t surprising that it was during Reagan’s time in office that headlines revealed underaged boys forced into prostitution were brought into the White House after hours.
        Ronnie’s assessment of Thatcher was more accurate than you may realize.

      1. Margaret Thatcher was nothing but a haughty shill for banksters, corrupt corporate interests and raging necrophiliac pedophiles like her very close friend and confidante, Jimmy Savile.

        1. The accusations are entirely accurate and Thatcher’s social policies were proven to be as disastrous for the UK as Reagan’s “Trickle Down” theory has been for the US.
          Her comment about Central Banking is particularly chilling for its lack of foresight.

  13. i dont really know much of american politics. obama seems done and hillary an awful option. but who would you guys recommend? are there any viable candidates at all, or is it just a big clownshow like in germany without real options?

    1. The Republican primaries should be interesting. I certainly like some of Rand Paul’s ideas. I like that Scott Walker is the politician who finally stood up to the government unions.

      1. “Scooter” was voted the worst governor in the entire nation for good reason.
        His Koch-coddling union meddling has turned Wisconsin into a wasteland of temp jobs and economic despair.

        1. Criminy, are you running for hall monitor, Bram?
          When a need arises to give a first-hand account of the devastation Walker’s caused Wisconsin there’s no time like the present.

      2. Beware, Rand is nothing like his father. Has career politician (read: banker shill) written all over him. He has a few conservative talking points but is basically a RINO. Would not endorse.

  14. Hillary for president? Over my dead benghazi body.
    That and the email scandals (to say nothing of her many “gate” related past scandals) should thoroughly disqualify her from serious consideration on the D side.
    Remember, everyone thought Hillary would win because of her Marriage to Bill…then Obama came along.

    1. “Over your dead benghazi body”? ‘The fuck kinda down’s syndrome are you suffering from?I don’t like hillary but you’re not american.worst of all you’ve got a middle-easter/muslim background.I do think you’ve every right and MORE to shut up…Laughable comment-some little third-world muslim commenting on the political future of the world’s superpower….no buddy,just no.

      1. I think you have grossly misinterpreted my comment.
        First of all I’m an American. Second of all i’m not middle eastern/muslim, i’m what you consider Christian. Third of all despite your profound ignorance we are likely in agreement that hillary would be a bad choice.
        My remark about Benghazi was meant to highlight the Benghazi fiasco that she was at least largely responsible for. Got it now?

        1. Don’t apologize or explain yourself to that fucking moron Dan. He doesn’t deserve the sweat off your sack.

    2. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
      1 Timothy 2:12

    1. 1) LOL at her being his side ho. So true
      2) The thought of her going down on anybody made me vomit a little.

  15. Corazon Aquino is like Lilian Tintori, the wife of currently-incarcerated Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez… women who fight for the legacy of their husbands -in dangerous environments- instead of fighting for their own ascention in the power rat race. I find them both admirable.

  16. This is interesting. Same goes for the Le Pen family in France. Marine can thank her father Jean-Marie. His granddaughter is also in the political game. Thanks gramps!

    1. kinda non-applicable considering she pretty much reinvented the whole damn thing(with the exclusion of the name itself)…Jean-Marie was widely despised(still is) let’s be fair-there’s not a chance in hell her party would’ve achieved what it did if she didn’t basically uplift it from it nazi-esque ideology.

      1. I agree with your comment. I’m just saying that without pops being in politics, Marine wouldn’t be in politics. It would be extremely slim that she would by her own doing.

        1. oh sure the paternal link certainly does play a part-give credit where credit is due right?That being said,i myself don’t think that had she not been “her father’s daughter” if you will her involvement in politics would’ve been ” extremely slim”… My point is that I think that by basically relaunching the party(quite successfully i might add) and pushing it into the popular mainstream she’s earned her credibility.You can’t say that she’s successful BECAUSE of her father(because the french public despises him and his ideologies…she had to put her OWN twist onto it in order to gain public support and remove the stigma-that’s her own achievement)….You can’t compare her to, say, hillary who is basically a carbon copy of bill in female form.The difference is that people will vote for hillary due to identity politics and not personal achievements(“woman president HURRAAAH” types) ,whereas le pen’s gained her popularity through her ideology.Clinton’s a cheap extension,le pen’s popularity is based on personal merit.

      1. Actually most self made leaders are exceptions to the rule, when it comes to politics. That’s not a fact to validate women, but more to point out the leach class that politicians are to begin with. The philosopher kings that Socrates dreamed of were merely that, a dream.

    1. Golda Mier former PM of Israel I believe was a “self made” woman
      Maggie Thatcher came from very humble beginnings also

  17. She’ll win because she’s another “first”.
    How many “firsts” do we have to go through before we can simply vote for competence?
    Next? The first Hispanic President.
    Then? The first Gay President.
    Then? The First Asian President.

  18. Being Filipino myself in real life, I’m actually realistic even though Cory Aquino got help, she actually HELPED HEAL THE PHILIPPINES AFTER MARTIAL LAW, WHICH THE ANGLOSPHERE POLITICAL POWERS OPENLY SUPPORTED.
    Yet, I see too many white knighting shenanigans with Hillary.

  19. This woman is the reason the word “cunt” was created. Dont worry, Paul will send her back to the kitchen.

    1. Hillary’s never been known to linger in the kitchen…. and cooking has nothing to do with gender…. Expecting someone to whip up a meal when it’s not their thing is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. Leave Hillary to her pettifogging. It’s what she knows best.
      As for the ancient origin of the word “cunt” …well, it turns out it means “Queen who invented writing and numerals”…… it’s a multilayered compliment rather than an insult.

  20. Australia just went through a nightmare period thanks to having a bitter feminist in the top job. Not just the economy, but our fabric of life was just crucified. Hilary should not be President, but she is certainly more impressive than Gillard .. Gillard lived with an unemployed gay hairdresser and prior to entering politics was fired from her job as a lawyer for helping her married boyfriend steal money from low paid workers for fuck’s sake… ask yourself, what kind of country would allow such a person to be their leader? Only a deeply feminist one..

  21. Women. They don’t hate us for our views, they hate us for their lack of power over us. They’ve become so entrenched in their narcissism that the notion of using effort and offering value beyond their pussy is heresy itself.

  22. Even most successful men are by far more well-connected than it seems. Still – among women that percentage is so high, that you may stop looking for the very rare self-made-woman altogether. Women make their careers on their backs and their knees – alternatively being born to wealthy well-connected parents like for example the current cast of Lena Dunham’s GIRLS – all girls having grown up in households over 20 mio. $ in assets and even more impressive family connections:
    Another interesting thing is how many women in NYC get co-financed by their daddies to even afford the expensive Sex and the City lifestyle. Strong empowered women my ass.

  23. Most female leaders only get there by men doing things for them
    In an all-female scenario the leader tends to be the most popular girl, the “moral leader” instead of an actual leader – that’s why female only task groups are always ineffective

  24. Most politicians have strong connections, period. The ratio of “self made people” in DC compared to the number of people that are part of political/corporate dynasties is pretty bleak. George W. Bush didn’t exactly work for everything he got, but let’s keep making it a gender issue because the elites prefer it when the masses are divided.

    1. ★❦★❦
      >>>>>>>>>I Make Money At H0me.,….,

      ➨➨➨➨ http://www.EXCELLENTJobsOffer

  25. A couple of details that need filling in. First you missed Angela Merkel, just a little important in world affairs. Secondly, Mrs. Clinton actually didn’t lose to Obama, she was cheated out of victory by the party apparatus. Likely a case of Dean getting revenge. As for her riding Bill’s coattails, that’s naive thinking at best. Those two evil bastards are the perfect team. In fact if you think she didn’t know about his cheating ways before the press broke the story. Please, her play to stay after the fact was all too telling. As for lambasting her for using family to rise to power, even candidates that I like such as Paul have to some extent or another played on family connections.

    1. “Game-changing” female leaders are those who are truly historic. Indira Ghandi was in a sense as the first female PM of India, but got there through her family connections.
      Thatcher and Golda Meir were game-changing and from lowlier backgrounds.
      I am reserving judgment on whether Merkel is game-changing until later, as she’s still in office presently.
      But the others I listed who are still in office (Park and Kirchner) are there by virtue of family connections and so are apt for use in this discussion.

  26. Make this bitch Hillary squirm. Isn’t she trying to act like a prol by hanging out at BBQs in the midwest? If you happen to run into her, just start asking real questions. Question her on feminism and anti-man courts and divorce laws. Question her on Iraq. Benghazi. NSA. The collapsing middle class. The deteriorating quality of life due to massive immigration, single mommy epidemics, beta-ized men. Do the job that mainstream media fails to do. This is your duty as a citizen. Hold these fuckers to the fire and don’t take boiler plated answers designed to shut you up.

    1. I’m hearing rumblings about Jim Webb being the Dem. candidate when the dust settles.
      A lot of liberals want nothing to do with Hillary because of her cozy ties with Wall Street and gluttonous corporations like Monsanto and Walmart.
      Her adverts can’t scrub that away.

    2. Yall shoulda stopped bitching about the black guy.
      It was a tough choice, texan retard, politically active wife of former president or token unknown.
      Do you not have any other decent candidates? Maybe some of you intellectual geniuses should go into politics.

  27. I’m not American, but the thought of Hilary as US President terrifies me. Make no mistake: She hates men, and considers each male to be disposable cannon fodder on par with the worst white-feather girl. Remember her words: “women are the primary victims of war, because the men are dead…”
    The worst part is, she probably will get voted in, as millions of women, white knights, and beta simps punch out her chad in the interest of “change” and “it’ll be cool”. (Sound familiar?) IOW she’ll become the world’s most powerful individual by simple virtue of her possessing a vagina.
    And they reckon there’s no such thing as female privilege.

    1. I think you’ll be surprised at how many people won’t consider voting for Clinton for almost the opposite of your stated reasons.
      —-Judging from her past associations, combined with our present convoluted system, Hillary Clinton would likely be just as deceptively beholden to the 1% as most other presidents who’ve come before….and our downward spiral would continue.
      It’s going to take far more than a mere change of genitals to break our pattern of gullibly accepting heavily scripted propaganda that bestows royalty status on coddled corporations while treating the hard working consumers that SUPPORT THEIR EXISTENCE like cattle being led to slaughter.
      While it’s childish to fear being led by a woman based on just her gender alone, it would be equally foolish to assume such a choice would automatically set things right.

  28. Mr. Garret, you’re wrong on so many key points.
    #1, Who ever considered Hillary a promising lawyer? She married Bill and went right to work as first lady of Arkansas.
    #2, Board memberships of corporations are handouts to the wives of politicians in exchange for votes and favors. Michelle Obama received 347,000 dollars a year for her membership on the board of Chicago’s richest hospital because her husband was a State Senator. Hillary and Michelle did nothing noble. Their husbands were dealing with NAFTA, CAFTA and SEATA in Bill and Hillary’s case when enabling lots of overseas manufacturing in the early 90’s. Walmart had a huge stake in North American Free Trade Agreement, hence the board-position payoff to Hillary.
    In Obama’s case, National Health Care via the ACA was the impetus for Michelle’s board position, a bribe to the Obama’s. Hence, Michelle Obama’s board membership. Hospitals LOVE to get paid, even through ACA. The bribe to the Obamas via Michelle Oh!’s board membership paid handsome dividends.
    #3, Democrats closed Hillary’s Delegates out of the late primaries, held a Caucus, and made Obama the nominee with several states left to go. Obama vs. Hillary wasn’t exactly the 1968 race of Robert F. Kennedy vs. Eugene McCarthy.
    #4, And finally, President Obama did NOT appoint Hillary SecState for any other reason than keeping his enemies close and for the natural protection Hillary at State provided against faulty foreign policy. Garret also conveniently forgets, ignores, or simply doesn’t know that Bill was hounding Hillary to run against Obama in 2012 because HE, Bill, was afraid it was too late in HIS life for her to wait until 2016. That’s from her book and also from Huma Wiener in many interviews on PBS. The press would happily have fried Hillary for all of her failures but didn’t because THAT would hurt Obama.
    There’s more, but why bother? I wish stories and op/ed at ROK had some accuracy in the history of how things come about. For so many stories to be written and published on ROK without any notion as to how things run in DC in particular and politics in general is rather a shortcoming and maybe why ROK isn’t being read much nor considered by the mainstream. Job #1 is credibility, especially when one is talking about Presidential candidates and heavy-handed political-influence-for-money. Missing that bit of wisdom is to completely misunderstand how the world works, how policy works, how America works. Mr. Garret is severely lacking in political savvy. Mr. Garret’s commentary on Bill and Hillary and their relationship with President Obama simply doesn’t bear the weight of serious scrutiny. If anyone cares to point out where I’m wrong, I’m all ears.
    Dammit. Another article. Sorry, Roosh. I’d write serious commentary instead of rebuttal, but you simply aren’t interested.

  29. All the fear expressed about Hillary (and we leave out conversation about Liz Warren to boot), if Republicans consider some combination of Mark Rubio, Scott Walker and Ted Cruz for President and Veep, that ticket can and will beat Hillary or Liz. I find the legislative results of 2010, 2012 and especially 2014 greatly encouraging.
    Gents, we’re right where we were in 1980, a failed and failing still Jimmy Carter running against Ronald Reagan. Carter was the Left-wing response to a corrupt and lame Nixon/Ford era. But in a mere 4 years, Carter fried his mandate and in Presidential politics, the country wiped out Liberal Democrats until 2008, Obama’s year. That’s 28 years of far more Conservative politics than Jimmy Carter, even with 8 years of Bill Clinton, actually, a fairly Conservative Democrat.
    Every generation or two, the experiment runs liberal, then runs conservative with a vengeance. Roosevelt/Truman followed by Ike/Jack Kennedy, Kennedy being QUITE Conservative, but it was a man’s world back then. A term of LBJ-style liberal-failure followed by two terms of Nixon/Ford. Nixon/Ford wasn’t so bad, but THOSE became liberal times, hence, Jimmy Carter. Then, two terms of Reagan, a term of Bush Senior followed by Bill Clinton. The dishonor of Clinton brought us two terms of George W. Bush.
    And here we are, two terms of a liberal nitwit know-nothing Muslim President who has the entire world in flames without a care in the world outside of his non-performing 7-iron on the golf course. I realize Republicans suck, but in the present day, I’ll take what I can get. Examining the history of political ebb and flow, I’d say we’re to pair up a Republican White House with a filibuster-proof House and Senate in the 2016 race.
    So don’t get too concerned about Hillary. The pendulum is about to swing right. It will only postpone the decline, unless men wake the fuck UP and take it all back. But it could happen. Remember, we’re smarter, stronger and tougher than they are. It’s our nature if we’ll just TAKE it back.

  30. < col Hiiiiiii Friends….’my friend’s mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    try this site HERE’S MORE DETAIL

  31. The vast majority of hillary supporters are really just bill supporters longing for a return to the glory days. If she didn’t marry him and have his last name, she’d never have been elected to city council of anywhere, usa. Everything she has politically has been achieved because of hubby.
    Problem is though, unlike bill, she has none of his charisma or speaking ability. She is about as charming as a robot.

    1. We don’t need a charmer in the White House. We need a bankster slappin’ champion for the working class who’s not afraid to take a stand against corporate greed and vile corruption.
      Hillary’s as timid as any currently running Republican when it comes to stepping on the toes of the 1%.

      1. We don’t need a charmer in the White House. We need a bankster slappin’ champion for the working class who’s not afraid to take a stand against corporate greed and vile corruption.
        IOW, we need Andy fuckin’ Jackson

  32. < col Hiiiiiii Friends….’my friend’s mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    try this site HERE’S MORE DETAIL

  33. Coat-tailing a man might describe half the female successes. The other half are just plain diversity hires (by complicit cultural Marxist HR managers) who then accrue false credentials over time. That also describes Hillary. She’s a coat-tailing diversity hire.

  34. < col Hiiiiiii Friends….’my friend’s mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    try this site HERE’S MORE DETAIL

  35. < col Hiiiiiii Friends….’my friend’s mom makes $88 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13904 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    try this site HERE’S MORE DETAIL

  36. Don’t forget Beyonce! She probably wouldn’t have achieved her fame and success without her father.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *